The Catholic teaching is that Mary is in heaven, such as is she now would parallel Astarte, as being queen of heaven which parallels pagan sun worshippers, that put Bel and Tammuz along with Astarte (queen of heaven) as part of a Trinity. Bel would parallel Sol Invictus, the god of Constantine, as the sun god. There is a queen of heaven for most pagan religions. The witches worship Gaia (earth mother). The sun god Mithras, born on 25 December, in a manger/cave, was supposedly born of the "immaculate virgin mother, Anahita, who had Iranian cults, and Mithras supposedly had 12 disciples.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where Did these Beliefs Come From?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
The Catholic teaching is that Mary is in heaven, such as is she now would parallel Astarte, as being queen of heaven which parallels pagan sun worshippers, that put Bel and Tammuz along with Astarte (queen of heaven) as part of a Trinity. Bel would parallel Sol Invictus, the god of Constantine, as the sun god. There is a queen of heaven for most pagan religions. The witches worship Gaia (earth mother). The sun god Mithras, born on 25 December, in a manger/cave, was supposedly born of the "immaculate virgin mother, Anahita, who had Iranian cults, and Mithras supposedly had 12 disciples.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Beware of cause & effect based on mere speculation.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The Masoretic text is not a translation. A translation is when you change the language of a text. The Masoretes added the vowel points, to make reading easier, but they changed none of the original Hebrew.
I'm not saying that a Greek Torah wasn't a nice idea for Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria. I'm just saying that, as a translation, it is inferior.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You realize that as a Jew I don't believe in any of this? I'm just wanting Catholics not to have misinformation spread about them, same as I wish for every group.
My understanding is that Catholics call Mary "queen of heaven" because she is described as being crowned by twelve stars and standing on the sun in the book of revelation. That doesn't make her a deity. For her to be a deity, catholics would have to SAY she is a deity, and they don't. They consider her the first best christian, who played an insurmountable role in what Christian's call God's plan of salvation.
Be careful with your comparisons. People can just as easily talk about incarnate gods that die and come back from the dead in other religions. They use these arguments to say that Christianity itself is pagan. If you use these lines of reasoning with Catholics, then you deserve them in turn with regards to your own faith.
Thankyou for the clarification.
Hi @pearl and @IndigoChild5559
Just a single point.
1) THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE EARLIEST TEXTS IS UNKNOWN
I think a contextual point needs to be made regarding the LXX (septuagint) and the Masoretic.
BOTH versions are JEWISH translations.
The LXX was a translation made BY Jews for Greek speaking Jews in approx 300 b.c. and the Masoretic created almost a millenia later.
Since no one knows what language(s) the original texts of the torah were written in and the hebrew of the Masoretic or DSS did not exist at the time of Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc, the hebrew versions are also a translation from the earliest languages.
If Abrahams language was that of the area of Ur, then he would have written in the language he knew.
If Moses wrote in egyptian for the egyptian Jews, his texts would have to have been translated from egyptian to another language, ultimately, to hebrew.
The point is simply that Both versions are Jewish versions and there is no evidence that either Jewish versions are in their original language.
2) THE MASORETES INDICATE THERE ARE MISTAKES IN THE MASORETIC AND THEY MADE CHANGES TO THE EARLIER SOURCE TEXT IN CREATING THEIR VERSION OF THE BIBLE
The Jewish Masoretes also tell us that the version they created has errors in it and though some of these errors existed by pre-existing textual corruptions, others were created by the Jewish Translators.
For example, the Jewish Massorah gives us lists of example errors and example of changes made to the text in the process of translation by Jewish translators.
This is NOT to say Christian translators did not make similar mistakes in the creation of their Christian New Testament literature, they did.
However both LXX and MS are translations and both have errors.
Clear
ειδρτωφιω και τωσεσε
Just a single point.
1) THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE EARLIEST TEXTS IS UNKNOWN
I think a contextual point needs to be made regarding the LXX (septuagint) and the Masoretic.
BOTH versions are JEWISH translations.
The LXX was a translation made BY Jews for Greek speaking Jews in approx 300 b.c. and the Masoretic created almost a millenia later.
Since no one knows what language(s) the original texts of the torah were written in and the hebrew of the Masoretic or DSS did not exist at the time of Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc, the hebrew versions are also a translation from the earliest languages.
If Abrahams language was that of the area of Ur, then he would have written in the language he knew.
If Moses wrote in egyptian for the egyptian Jews, his texts would have to have been translated from egyptian to another language, ultimately, to hebrew.
The point is simply that Both versions are Jewish versions and there is no evidence that either Jewish versions are in their original language.
2) THE MASORETES INDICATE THERE ARE MISTAKES IN THE MASORETIC AND THEY MADE CHANGES TO THE EARLIER SOURCE TEXT IN CREATING THEIR VERSION OF THE BIBLE
The Jewish Masoretes also tell us that the version they created has errors in it and though some of these errors existed by pre-existing textual corruptions, others were created by the Jewish Translators.
For example, the Jewish Massorah gives us lists of example errors and example of changes made to the text in the process of translation by Jewish translators.
This is NOT to say Christian translators did not make similar mistakes in the creation of their Christian New Testament literature, they did.
However both LXX and MS are translations and both have errors.
Clear
ειδρτωφιω και τωσεσε
Last edited:
And what is my faith? Your Revelation 12 talks about the "dragon", which parallels the evil Trinity of the Sumerians, which includes the evil goddess, described as a dragon which had to be defeated. The book of Revelation also relates the dragon to Satan, and the devil. That would apply to the book of Revelation's Babylon the Great, which is based of the mystery religion of the Sumerian region, which will be thrown into the sea per your book of Revelation 18:21. The Trinity of the Roman church parallels the many Trinities of the pagans, who are daughters of the Babylon mystery church. As worshippers of Bel, the Jews were also daughters of the Babylonian church. As for how the "queen of heaven" is treated by the Catholics, my neighbor has an altar in her front yard with a statue of Mary. She also had a vote for Biden sign, a democrat responsible for 60 million babies being aborted, which is many more children killed than the Jews sacrificed to Bel. What happened to Jerusalem after that? What is going to happen to the US after the last innocent is murdered per Revelation? The Catholic church I was raised in had a statue of Mary in the front of the church, which is contrary to the 10 commandments, before which the old ladies kneeled and prayed to, and lighted candles. Neither is Mary a god, nor is she in heaven, and neither is Yeshua a god, but an anointed one, just as King David was anointed, and will rule at the end of the age (Ezekiel 37:25 & Ezekiel 34:23-24).
As for their being the "best christian", there is no "good christian", for according to Yeshua, only God is good, and the "Christians", are simply followers of the path of the Roman church, built on the foundation of the two horns of the beast (Rev 13), Peter and Paul, who are the tares of Matthew 13, which will find themselves gathered "first", and thrown into the furnace of fire.
As for a "plan of salvation", there are two gospels, the gospel of the kingdom, which is the good seed of Mt 13, and the gospel of the false prophet Paul, which is the tare seed of Mt 13, who are on the path to destruction (Matthew 7:13).
As for Revelation 12:1 being about Mary, that is more likely a reference to the "saints"/"holy people" (Israel), who were 12 tribes, who were given into the hands of the "another one"/king, Constantine, the founder of the Roman Catholic Church for time, times, and half a time (Daniel 7:24-25 & Daniel 12:7-13). There are similarities to the history of Mary, except the offspring of the Roman Catholic church Mary, doesn't "keep the commandments of God", nor hold "to the testimony of Yeshua" (Revelation 12:17). The Mary of the the Roman church compares with Ishtar (queen of heaven), one of the Trinities of Paganism. Her pagan feast day is celebrated on Easter, and the Roman Catholics as children were taught that they go to hell if they don't go to mass on Easter, the date of Ishtar's spring festival.
As Revelation clearly states that the daughters of Babylon the Great (mystery religion)(Rev 13) are in for a wide awakening, and looking at destruction (Revelation 18:21), not comparing the religion of Babylon to her daughters, such as "Christians", would be a dereliction of duty to anyone who saw the similarities. The world was to be deceived (Revelation 13). It is best to see how, when, and by whom.
The Roman church wiped out it's dissenters, most recently by burning them alive or dead by means of the Catholic Inquisition. Now that the Israel is out from under the feet of the power of Constantine's Roman church (Daniel 12:7-13) & 7:24-25), the "end of time"/"end of the age", is nigh. One can remain with the tares (Mt 13), or repent, and maybe escape being thrown into the furnace of fire (Tribulation).
Hi @Deeje
Just a single point.
Ancient Symbols are portable and not static in their meaning.
A single symbol may appear in different cultures and the meaning may differ between uses and cultures.
for example, Below are the two pictures you offered for your comment that the christian cross was part of egyptian theology before it was used in Christianity.
The Ankh represented life (eternal) and may have originated as tie in a sash, or as the sign of a sandal (i.e. a certain "walk" of life), etc. It's origin is actually unknown.
Both pictures contain not only the sign of the ankh (eternal life) but also the djed sign (to the right of the ankh in one picture and the background in the picture to the right), which, variously represented the resurrection and the "was" sceptre to the right represented priesthood power.
These three symbols represented principles also inherent in early christian theology ("priesthood" power, and resurrection and eternal life).
In any case, I simply wanted to point out that whatever the symbol meant to the egyptians or to constatine or to an individual modern christian is not necessarily what the symbol meant to the earliest Christians, and, as the pictures demonstrate, symbols are often syncretic.
Good luck in your own spiritual journey Deeje.
Clear
ειδρσεσεω
Just a single point.
Ancient Symbols are portable and not static in their meaning.
A single symbol may appear in different cultures and the meaning may differ between uses and cultures.
for example, Below are the two pictures you offered for your comment that the christian cross was part of egyptian theology before it was used in Christianity.
The Ankh represented life (eternal) and may have originated as tie in a sash, or as the sign of a sandal (i.e. a certain "walk" of life), etc. It's origin is actually unknown.
Both pictures contain not only the sign of the ankh (eternal life) but also the djed sign (to the right of the ankh in one picture and the background in the picture to the right), which, variously represented the resurrection and the "was" sceptre to the right represented priesthood power.
These three symbols represented principles also inherent in early christian theology ("priesthood" power, and resurrection and eternal life).
In any case, I simply wanted to point out that whatever the symbol meant to the egyptians or to constatine or to an individual modern christian is not necessarily what the symbol meant to the earliest Christians, and, as the pictures demonstrate, symbols are often syncretic.
Good luck in your own spiritual journey Deeje.
Clear
ειδρσεσεω
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The original language of the Tanakh is Hebrew, without question. To say anything else is just absurd.
The Masoretes did not change the Hebrew of the text. The Masoretic text is not a translation.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I stand by what I said. Again, I have no dog in the catholic protestant race. My only purpose is that I hate seeing ANY religion (or group) misrepresented. I do believe that is exactly what you are doing when in fact the catechism states very clearly that there is One God and he is not Mary.
Anything more detailed than that, you really need to take up with the catholics in the forum.
and don't forget, it's not "my" book of revelation. I am not a Chrisitan. To me the NT is no different than the Quran or Vedas or Book of Mormon.
Hi @IndigoChild5559 and @pearl
IndigoChild5559 claimed : The original language of the Tanakh is Hebrew, without question. To say anything else is just absurd. (post #90)
It is even MORE absurd to claim that the bible was written in a language that did not exist at the time the stories happened.
What evidence do you have that Adam or his children or Abraham spoke the same hebrew of the Masoretic text?
In fact, what evidence do you have that the same Hebrew of the Masoretic text even existed in Adam or his childrens or in Abraham's day?
Why would you assume that Abraham whose people were Sumerians/Akkadians did not speak Sumerian or Akkadian but instead, spoke the hebrew of the Masoretic?
IndigoChild5559 claimed : "The Masoretes did not change the Hebrew of the text." (post #90)
And yet, the Masoretes themselves tell us they DID change the Masoretic text.
It is absurd to claim that the creators of the text did not make changes when they, themselves claim they did AND when they, themselves gave us examples of multiple changes they made.
IndigoChild5559 claimed :The Masoretic text is not a translation." (post #90)
IF the hebrew of the Masoretic was not the original language of Adam and his children and of Abraham etc. among whom the earliest stories and texts were generated, then It is absurd to claim the Masoretic text is not a translation from that earliest source language.
Other than Jewish traditions, what evidence do you have that hebrew was the original Adamic language and that Adam passed his history down to his children in the hebrew language of the masoretic bible?
Clear
ειδρακνεω
IndigoChild5559 claimed : The original language of the Tanakh is Hebrew, without question. To say anything else is just absurd. (post #90)
It is even MORE absurd to claim that the bible was written in a language that did not exist at the time the stories happened.
What evidence do you have that Adam or his children or Abraham spoke the same hebrew of the Masoretic text?
In fact, what evidence do you have that the same Hebrew of the Masoretic text even existed in Adam or his childrens or in Abraham's day?
Why would you assume that Abraham whose people were Sumerians/Akkadians did not speak Sumerian or Akkadian but instead, spoke the hebrew of the Masoretic?
IndigoChild5559 claimed : "The Masoretes did not change the Hebrew of the text." (post #90)
And yet, the Masoretes themselves tell us they DID change the Masoretic text.
It is absurd to claim that the creators of the text did not make changes when they, themselves claim they did AND when they, themselves gave us examples of multiple changes they made.
IndigoChild5559 claimed :The Masoretic text is not a translation." (post #90)
IF the hebrew of the Masoretic was not the original language of Adam and his children and of Abraham etc. among whom the earliest stories and texts were generated, then It is absurd to claim the Masoretic text is not a translation from that earliest source language.
Other than Jewish traditions, what evidence do you have that hebrew was the original Adamic language and that Adam passed his history down to his children in the hebrew language of the masoretic bible?
Clear
ειδρακνεω
Hello Clear....
These symbols are seen recurring through history, and the cross' connection with sex and sex worship is historical.
The ankh cross is "the symbol of life" meaning that it depicts coitus...the union of male and female in reproducing life. What it meant to the Egyptians and what the cross meant to other cultures makes little difference to what it means to Christendom. Since no images of any kind were to be used in worship, the making of a cross for that purpose is still a serious breach of the second Commandment.
There is not a single scripture that says Christ died on a cross.....the implement is called a "stauros" which as you are aware, was never a cross, but a single upright stake or paling. Jesus' death had to fulfill a prophesy. (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23)
This is idolatry.....these images are found in Catholic churches. How many people know that it is physically impossible for Jesus to have been hung like this.....not to mention the fact that it is bizarre to make a replica of the instrument used to put someone you love to death, and then to venerate it.
If Jesus had been hung, would we now see a little gallows adorning the churches with a figure of Jesus swinging from the rope....? Seriously....
When God makes a law that says "do not make images of anything" or "bow down to them"...and a violation means complete alienation from God, Catholicism has some serious questions to answer. And since Christendom as a whole accepts this sign of the cross, knowing its grubby origins as a disgusting symbol for sex down through the ages, makes it even worse IMO. But would you put it past the devil to be smiling in the background at his accomplishment....getting ignorant people to revere something that has always been detestable to God? All venerated images are disgusting to him....
It was discovered that in the catacombs, on the many thousands of tombs of Christians found there, no symbols for Christianity included a cross until the formation of Roman Catholicism in the 4th century. There were no 'sacred' symbols until then.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Why? If I write about something that happened a thousand years ago, the original language of my writing would still be English.
I can see we are going to run into some problems here, since you seem to think that Adam is an actual historical figure.
The hebrew used for the Torah is ancient Hebrew. It was not changed by the Masoretes. The MT is not a translation. The Masoretes added vowel points and commentary. They did not alter the Hebrew. They did not translate that ancient Hebrew into any other language.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
"Babylon the Great" was a cloaked reference to the Roman Empire, which the Catholic Church was oppressed and attacked by, such as what Paul and Peter were executed by. Thus, it was not the Catholic Church that's "Babylon the Great" but that which oppressed the Church. Revelation forecasts the eventual success of the Church through these tribulations.
That has nothing to do with "Babylon the Great". However, it did happen as the Church got too close, and was sometimes dominated, by secular leaders.
Repentance is personal per the Gospel, and let me remind you that no one ever said that the Church was perfect or would ever be perfect. After all, look what Jesus had to put up with when the Apostles themselves didn't do what he said. And if you think your JW's are "perfect", maybe do some research from non-JW sources. Are you "perfect"? I certainly ain't.
So, maybe stop strutting around while pretending that you and your fellow JW's are bastions of purity. IOW, "Physician, heal thyself".
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Romans did not use the stake for crucifixion but for impaling, and there's no record of impaling being used in eretz Israel.
Some may find this interesting:
There are few extant examples of the cross in 2nd century Christian iconography. It has been argued that Christians were reluctant to use it as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution. A symbol similar to the cross, the staurogram, was used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66, P45 and P75, almost like a nomen sacrum. The extensive adoption of the cross as a Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century.
However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[8] of Minucius Felix, chapters IX and XXIX, written at the end of that century or the beginning of the next,[note 2] and by the fact that by the early 3rd century the cross had become so closely associated with Christ that Clement of Alexandria, who died between 211 and 216, could without fear of ambiguity use the phrase τὸ κυριακὸν σημεῖον (the Lord's sign) to mean the cross, when he repeated the idea, current as early as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, that the number 318 (in Greek numerals, ΤΙΗ) in Genesis 14:14 was interpreted as a foreshadowing (a "type") of the cross (T, an upright with crossbar, standing for 300) and of Jesus (ΙΗ, the first two letters of his name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, standing for 18).[10] His contemporary Tertullian rejected the accusation of Christians being "adorers of the gibbet" (crucis religiosi).[note 3] In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.[note 4] The crucifix, a cross upon which an image of Christ is present, is not known to have been used until the 6th century AD.
The oldest extant depiction of the execution of Jesus in any medium seems to be the second-century or early third-century relief on a jasper gemstone meant for use as an amulet, which is now in the British Museum in London. It portrays a naked bearded man whose arms are tied at the wrists by short strips to the transom of a T-shaped cross. An inscription in Greek on the obverse contains an invocation of the redeeming crucified Christ. On the reverse a later inscription by a different hand combines magical formulae with Christian terms. The catalogue of a 2007 exhibition says: "The appearance of the Crucifixion on a gem of such an early date suggests that pictures of the subject (now lost) may have been widespread even in the late second or early third century, most likely in conventional Christian contexts"... -- Christian cross - Wikipedia
Some may find this interesting:
There are few extant examples of the cross in 2nd century Christian iconography. It has been argued that Christians were reluctant to use it as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution. A symbol similar to the cross, the staurogram, was used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66, P45 and P75, almost like a nomen sacrum. The extensive adoption of the cross as a Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century.
However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[8] of Minucius Felix, chapters IX and XXIX, written at the end of that century or the beginning of the next,[note 2] and by the fact that by the early 3rd century the cross had become so closely associated with Christ that Clement of Alexandria, who died between 211 and 216, could without fear of ambiguity use the phrase τὸ κυριακὸν σημεῖον (the Lord's sign) to mean the cross, when he repeated the idea, current as early as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, that the number 318 (in Greek numerals, ΤΙΗ) in Genesis 14:14 was interpreted as a foreshadowing (a "type") of the cross (T, an upright with crossbar, standing for 300) and of Jesus (ΙΗ, the first two letters of his name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, standing for 18).[10] His contemporary Tertullian rejected the accusation of Christians being "adorers of the gibbet" (crucis religiosi).[note 3] In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.[note 4] The crucifix, a cross upon which an image of Christ is present, is not known to have been used until the 6th century AD.
The oldest extant depiction of the execution of Jesus in any medium seems to be the second-century or early third-century relief on a jasper gemstone meant for use as an amulet, which is now in the British Museum in London. It portrays a naked bearded man whose arms are tied at the wrists by short strips to the transom of a T-shaped cross. An inscription in Greek on the obverse contains an invocation of the redeeming crucified Christ. On the reverse a later inscription by a different hand combines magical formulae with Christian terms. The catalogue of a 2007 exhibition says: "The appearance of the Crucifixion on a gem of such an early date suggests that pictures of the subject (now lost) may have been widespread even in the late second or early third century, most likely in conventional Christian contexts"... -- Christian cross - Wikipedia
I am certainly not a JW, and the Roman Catholic church is not "Babylon the Great", she is a harlot daughter of Babylon the Great, and either one "comes out of her", or they partake in her "plagues" (Revelation 18:4). The leaders of the reformation got it somewhat correct in that they called the Roman Catholic Church, the whore of Babylon, as the Roman church was a daughter of Babylon. The Reformation churches also are daughters of Babylon. As for Peter and Paul, they apparently went to Rome, and caused strive between their followers in the city of Nero. Since Paul's connection, Herod, had fallen out of favor with Nero, Paul had nothing to protect him from the wrath of Nero.
As for the Inquisition, the 12 leaders were appointed by the pope to rid the Roman Holy Empire of radicals such as the Cathars who among other things, didn't accept the leadership of church appointed bishops. The Inquisition body exist today except under another name. I don't consider the Pope as being "secular".
I can agree that you are "not perfect". You might want to follow Yeshua's teaching on the subject, and simply start following the commandments. (Mt 19:21)
As for "healing thyself", you might want to look in the mirror. Why are you in need of healing. James seems to have provided a quick way to health (James 5:16). Do you know no one whose prayers are heard by God. Possibly God doesn't hear the prayer of the sinner. (John 9:31)
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I do apologize for that as I obviously thought you were.
Again, they were enemies, so what about this don't you understand?
Who has been feeding yourself on this mind-numbing bigotry? What denomination are you part of? Does your pastor teach you that it's moral to be so judgmental towards others?
Ah, some more arrogant and condescending bigotry-- you're on quite a roll.
I believe we are all in need of healing at times, including those who blatantly display arrogance and bigotry. If God supposedly doesn't "hear the prayer of the sinner", then I would suggest we all are in rather deep doo-doo.
Suggestion: Maybe get over yourself.
I'm done.
Hi @IndigoChild5559 and @pearl
REGARDING ORIGINAL LANGUAGES AND TRADITIONS FROM THE EARLIEST AGES OF THE EARTH
IndigoChild5559 claimed : The original language of the Tanakh is Hebrew, without question. To say anything else is just absurd. (post #90)
Clear replied : “It is even MORE absurd to claim that the bible was written in a language that did not exist at the time the stories happened.’ (Masoretic Hebrew did not exist in the most ancient times)
IndigoChild5559 replied : “Why? If I write about something that happened a thousand years ago, the original language of my writing would still be English.
Because the original stories did not happen in Hebrew of the Masoretic bible you still have to translate what was said and done anciently into English.
If, one thousand years ago one german said to another “Guten Tag Rolf, wie Gehts?”, and you write “Dirk said “ Good Day Rolf. How are you?”, you still translated the original german sentence into English regardless of when you wrote your history.
The underlying principle is that we have no evidence that the earliest stories and ancient history of the Old Testament happened in the Hebrew of the Masoretic nor that the earliest versions were written in the Hebrew of the Masoretic. Unless the ancient history happened in Hebrew of the Masoretic, then it involved translation.
Indigochild5559 said : “The hebrew used for the Torah is ancient Hebrew. It was not changed by the Masoretes.”
Indigochild5559 said : “A translation is when you change the language of a text.”
A translation is not merely the transfer of words from one language to another but it is a transfer of meaning.
If you say “I have a pet Dog” and I tell another person "indigochild5559 said “I have a pet Cat”, I am not moving from one language to another but am still transferring meaning. In this case I changed the meaning of the original sentence as did the Masoretes tell us they did in many cases when they created the Masoretic Bible.
The Masoretes themselves tell us they changed the words of their original text and they give us many, many examples where they changed both the original words AND the original meaning AND they tell us what their motives were in doing so.
Not only was the Masoretic a translation (as the creators of Masoretic tell us it is) but it does not reflect the original text in many cases (as the creators of the Masoretic tell us).
In any case the Masoretic hebrew version reflects traditions that happened long ago and we have no evidence the original stories of the most ancient portions of the text occurred in Masoretic Hebrew, but instead, happened in different languages that were translated. We simply don't have original language or original text from the most ancient histories.
Clear
ειφισεσεω
REGARDING ORIGINAL LANGUAGES AND TRADITIONS FROM THE EARLIEST AGES OF THE EARTH
IndigoChild5559 claimed : The original language of the Tanakh is Hebrew, without question. To say anything else is just absurd. (post #90)
Clear replied : “It is even MORE absurd to claim that the bible was written in a language that did not exist at the time the stories happened.’ (Masoretic Hebrew did not exist in the most ancient times)
IndigoChild5559 replied : “Why? If I write about something that happened a thousand years ago, the original language of my writing would still be English.
Because the original stories did not happen in Hebrew of the Masoretic bible you still have to translate what was said and done anciently into English.
If, one thousand years ago one german said to another “Guten Tag Rolf, wie Gehts?”, and you write “Dirk said “ Good Day Rolf. How are you?”, you still translated the original german sentence into English regardless of when you wrote your history.
The underlying principle is that we have no evidence that the earliest stories and ancient history of the Old Testament happened in the Hebrew of the Masoretic nor that the earliest versions were written in the Hebrew of the Masoretic. Unless the ancient history happened in Hebrew of the Masoretic, then it involved translation.
Indigochild5559 said : “The hebrew used for the Torah is ancient Hebrew. It was not changed by the Masoretes.”
Indigochild5559 said : “A translation is when you change the language of a text.”
A translation is not merely the transfer of words from one language to another but it is a transfer of meaning.
If you say “I have a pet Dog” and I tell another person "indigochild5559 said “I have a pet Cat”, I am not moving from one language to another but am still transferring meaning. In this case I changed the meaning of the original sentence as did the Masoretes tell us they did in many cases when they created the Masoretic Bible.
The Masoretes themselves tell us they changed the words of their original text and they give us many, many examples where they changed both the original words AND the original meaning AND they tell us what their motives were in doing so.
Not only was the Masoretic a translation (as the creators of Masoretic tell us it is) but it does not reflect the original text in many cases (as the creators of the Masoretic tell us).
In any case the Masoretic hebrew version reflects traditions that happened long ago and we have no evidence the original stories of the most ancient portions of the text occurred in Masoretic Hebrew, but instead, happened in different languages that were translated. We simply don't have original language or original text from the most ancient histories.
Clear
ειφισεσεω
Hi @Deeje
I agree with your base point that images and symbols are not to be, themselves, worshipped.
However, not all symbols involve worship of false Gods.
For example, the ancient old testament symbolism of sacrifice of animals did not symbolize the worship of false Gods.
A picture of the bible may symbolize Judeo-Christian religion but this picture would not be associated with worship of the bible itself nor of a false God.
Possessing a symbol such as a picture of a Jehovahs Witness meeting house does not equate with worship of the meeting house but instead, a simple symbol of goodness and faith.
My point is that the symbols of the ankh, was scepter and djed were not, themselves worshiped any more than an ICTHUS fish bumper sticker on the back of a car is worshipped.
The symbols of eternal life (ankh), was scepter (authority) and djed (resurrection) were symbols that served as reminders of Gods authority, the promised resurrection and eternal life.
The symbols were not themselves items of worship but were visual reminders of God who is worthy of worship.
While the ankh may simply symbolize “sex” to you, it doesn’t represent that to most individuals and while YOU may see it as an item worshipped by other individuals, that is probably not what is actually happening inside the heart and mind of someone else who sees an ankh or a cross or an Icthus symbol.
Certain religious symbolism such a picture of someone placing their my hand on the bible in a courtroom doesn’t equate with improper worship, but may simply mean a symbol of respect for God who sees the testimony and will see whether the person tells the truth or not after making a sacred promise to tell the truth.
That was my point.
In any case, we agree that objects are not worthy of worship.
I hope your spiritual journey is good Deeje.
Clear
ειφινετζω
I agree with your base point that images and symbols are not to be, themselves, worshipped.
However, not all symbols involve worship of false Gods.
For example, the ancient old testament symbolism of sacrifice of animals did not symbolize the worship of false Gods.
A picture of the bible may symbolize Judeo-Christian religion but this picture would not be associated with worship of the bible itself nor of a false God.
Possessing a symbol such as a picture of a Jehovahs Witness meeting house does not equate with worship of the meeting house but instead, a simple symbol of goodness and faith.
My point is that the symbols of the ankh, was scepter and djed were not, themselves worshiped any more than an ICTHUS fish bumper sticker on the back of a car is worshipped.
The symbols of eternal life (ankh), was scepter (authority) and djed (resurrection) were symbols that served as reminders of Gods authority, the promised resurrection and eternal life.
The symbols were not themselves items of worship but were visual reminders of God who is worthy of worship.
While the ankh may simply symbolize “sex” to you, it doesn’t represent that to most individuals and while YOU may see it as an item worshipped by other individuals, that is probably not what is actually happening inside the heart and mind of someone else who sees an ankh or a cross or an Icthus symbol.
Certain religious symbolism such a picture of someone placing their my hand on the bible in a courtroom doesn’t equate with improper worship, but may simply mean a symbol of respect for God who sees the testimony and will see whether the person tells the truth or not after making a sacred promise to tell the truth.
That was my point.
In any case, we agree that objects are not worthy of worship.
I hope your spiritual journey is good Deeje.
Clear
ειφινετζω
Last edited: